David Dykes and Mac Brunson gave nomination speeches that were not room swaying speeches. Brunson was passionate, but Dykes was reserved. At one point, Mac said that Jim represented a list of varying viewpoints that his state convention had, among many other things, charismatic churches in it. Oops. I think he just got carried away. Also, he dusted off the Resurgence code phrase, “He’s one of us,” four times. He closed his speech with the fourth recitation, just in case anyone missed it. Also, if Dykes said that David Rogers was kin to Adrian, I didn’t hear it. Someone did start talking to me in the middle of the speech, though, so he may have.
The room was emptying of everyone but Texans, it seemed, who roundly applauded Dr. Patterson and the majority of whom bowed their heads toward their ballots when asked to punch chad number 5 for Jim Richards. If there were 6,000 messengers in the room, I’d be shocked.
Again, folks will try to paint this election as a referendum on the narrowing issues, but its just not. It may be in the minds of some, but it is not the primary reason they are voting. I sat next to some folks from Texas at lunch who had no idea David was Adrian’s son. Richards should win this election on name recognition alone. That and the absence of messengers during that election disproves that people think this is a referendum of any sort. They just think its a nothing vote, and they prefer supper to waiting in lines, which is what they will have to do if they stayed through the vote. The real referendum is on the BFM motion, which is specifically on topic here. That motion is to receive the report of the Executive Committee which has answered a question from last year – Is the BFM sufficient to guide our entities and institutions? They say it is. The debate is scheduled for tonight at 7:35 pm. It has the weight of a resolution authored by the Executive Committee.
Speaking of being in Texas and home court advantage, Bart Barber was overheard telling someone that he had some “politics” to attend to – lining some guys up at the mics for the SWBTS report. The only problem was that there weren’t any others who wanted to ask any questions, so it only served to allow Paige a few shots at others. Wes was first up, and he asked if it were true that SWBTS was offering a “homemaking” program for women. Dr. P. proudly affirmed that it would start in the fall. There were a few others – there were folks at every mic and Marty observed Bart directing traffic, or so it seemed to him. The final question was about signing the BFM only (without caveats). This allowed Paige to wax eloquent about bringing out the desk during chapel and having each professor attach only his (or her?) name. Obviously, this is a shot at Wade. My mind pictured Dr. Klouda at the desk in that picture I have seen on someone’s blog.
Dr. P had a few other shots in the report, but I’ll let you watch it for yourself.
I did ask a question in the Lifeway report, and some of you saw me on the net. A few months ago, at the Baptist Identity Conference, Thom Rainer asked me what Lifeway could do for my church. I mentioned Fuel, the video Bible study for Youth, and asked if we could get more things that relate to younger generations. My questioned followed up on that, asking what we could look for in the future. A few others had some questions. Watch it for yourselves.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Gary Snowden
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 6:40 pm:
Art,
I caught you on video streaming with your questions for Thom Rainer. I stuck around watching Paige Patterson’s report and he definitely did take his share of potshots at the “charismatics” as he called them. What really got to me were the clearly orchestrated questions. It was painfully obvious that those asking them had already been pre-arranged to do so. I wonder if Wes was a bit surprised by Paige’s response about the “homemaking” course of study. It almost sounded as if Wes was trying to downplay Ben’s recent criticisms of it, while Dr. Patterson proudly touted it as a wonderful program filling a vital need.
Blogger Jack Maddox and the next guy’s questions were like lobbed softballs dealing with SWBTS’ passion for missions and evangelism and the preparation of ministers for the times in which we live. It was the final guy, whose name I didn’t catch, who was so obviously struggling to read correctly the question that he had been supplied to attack Wade on the issue of dissenting from the BF&M 2000. Convention politics were never more clearly displayed than in that final question.
Lucas Defalco
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 6:45 pm:
I watched both nominating speeches. Mac’s “he’s one of us” mantra was a reference to Jim Richards’ being a pastor and not a denominational bureaucrat. Of course with the SBCT/BGCT split there could have been some double entendre in Mac’s comments.
‘Tis academic because they just announced that Jim Richards won with 60% .
I guess David Dykes should have mentions who David’s daddy was. Oh well.
Kevin Bussey
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 6:49 pm:
Art,
I watched too. David Dykes did mention that David Rogers is Adrian’s son. Probably people thought you were related to him. :)
Lucas Defalco
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 6:52 pm:
On another topic, Guidestone’s presentation was very encouraging. Seems like God is doing some wonderful things using the financial expertise at Guidestone to help struggling retired pastors. It warms my heart with private organization are able to fill in the gaps that government agencies cannot.
Lucas Defalco
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 7:57 pm:
Wow. They are really struggling to find someone from the floor to speak against the BF&M motion. The only person I heard speak against it was a ’63 BF&M fan….lol….
BTW, Dwight McKissic’ comments from the floor was brilliant…parents run the house, not children.
AKD
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 8:08 pm:
I TRULY do not have a dog in this hunt but I think that I will have to repeat the words of some who anticipated the way the opposition might react to the LifeWay report on PPL as it applies to the Richards/Rogers election — “let the spin begin.”
And yes, Dr. Dykes did mention the fact that David Rogers was the son of Adrian.
AKD
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 8:34 pm:
Yes, before I forget. It was obvious to anyone who was watching the SWBTS report that some audience question staging was going on. The questions and the questioners were obviously worked out in advance. However, I ask you two questions:
1) Would you not have done the same thing?
2) Don’t you wish that you had thought of it first?
One last thing — perhaps BSC tipped his hand too soon with his last blog regarding a motion.
Art Rogers
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 9:16 pm:
Amy,
I am not mad about it. It was actually not very well done. I could have beaten several folks to the mic, if embarrassing Dr. P were my goal.
It never has been.
Brad Guenther
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 9:26 pm:
Art,
Why is this election not indicative of any referendum on the PPL issue? Are you honestly telling me if David won you would consider this election no big deal. For full disclosure, I am not able to be in San Antonio and I have never been to Texas. I have been watching the feed via the website pretty faithfully. However, I have a hard time believing that Jim Richards regional appeal to Texans overshadowed the national recognition of Adrian Rogers boy, which Dykes pointed out about 60 seconds into his nomination speech, the theme of which, his heroes, clearly was crafted to open the door for his comment, “another one of my heroes is Adrian Rogers, David’s father, but I don’t want you to vote for him because he’s Adrian’s son.” Come on…you really missed that one! If you don’t want that to factor into the vote, don’t mention it! You decry Bart’s political manuevering, but you claim to be blind to or dismissive of the impact of the political manuevering of your friends? Come on. Let’s be a little balanced. You guys are all excited about vague statements by Morris Chapman, horrified by straightforward statements by Patterson, and dismissive of votes that don’t go your way.
BTW, you looked good on camera. I know Marty teases Wade about looking like a weatherman. Dude, you looked like the serious field reporter.
"John" the Baptist
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 9:59 pm:
Gary,
The guy who could barely read the question he was presenting (leading many of us to [rightly?] believe someone else had written it for him) was none other than . . . (drum roll please) . . . Jeremy Green!!!
Unbelievable, huh!
“John” the Baptist
Les Puryear
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 11:43 pm:
Amy,
Audience question staging? Ya think? :)
It was almost funny to see Dr. Patterson’s minions daring anyone to breach their wall of protection.
As I said…it was “almost” funny.
Les
Trey Roberson
on Jun 12th, 2007
@ 11:52 pm:
Guys,
Mic controlling is as old as mics at the SBC. Every faction uses it for good or bad. Whoever has the desire can do that. Its been done over the last 25 years for better or worse.
The spin on the election will go on for both sides. It is what it is. If Rogers wins, the spin would go on. Im no expert but I think Richards was a “wildcard” in being local. Neither is a bad person or is a statement on direction of SBC. 60-40 in Texas may in fact be closer than expected.
As long as the conversations continue in an intelligent and spiritual way then we are good. Granted that this is a no brainer type statement. If the past mistakes of winner take all though are repeated then is when the real danger begins.
Trey
Art Rogers
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 12:22 am:
Brad,
Some fair questions, but some not so fair.
I am not decrying that Bart engaged in politics. I have engaged in it for 18 mos. The only thing I have done in the public SBC arena that was not centered on politics was the Memphis Declaration. That was not political, at least not for me.
But my commentary is not to condemn what Bart or Dr. Patterson did, just to point it out for what it is. There are plenty who point out our political mechanizations and Bart is one of them. In fact, we are sometimes too revelatory of them ourselves, for my taste.
Nevertheless, I am very weary of it. There are those who live for it. I don’t. I was treated pretty rudely and dismissively tonight by a brother in Christ – because I was for the BFM motion and was ready to speak to it. That disgusts me. It’s just not worth that kind of division in the body. Moreover, I was warmly received by some brothers who ate supper with me but voted opposite me. They were warm and loving. We discussed the finer points and they listened intently. I doubt that I swayed them, but they received me and listened to me. In the end, we are still brothers. That’s the SBC that I want.
As for the election being a referendum, I did say that there was surely some element inherent, but it can not be definitive as there were so many other issues that clouded the election. David Rogers wasn’t present, Jim Richards was in his home convention, the SBTC low voter turn out (like 3,000 votes cast out of 8,000 messengers) all skew the end result.
In contrast, the vote on the BFM was specifically on the issue and a much better tool for evaluating the mind of the convention on the issues of PPL, et al.
I did miss the reference to David as Adrian’s boy. I have not changed my take on why that made him a good candidate. I am only noting that I didn’t hear it. In truth, someone started talking to me during the speech and I missed about a minute of the beginning of it – which was significant.
Thanks for the compliment about my attire. (I’ll take it as a compliment) I wore a suit knowing that I would likely be at a microphone today and, therefore, on camera. Politics – guilty.
Oh, and I never claimed to be unbiased. This has been an editorial commentary and analysis for about 18 months. No one has claimed otherwise. I do try to be honest with myself with what I write. Self criticism has helped me some, but hurt me some as well. Nevertheless, I have written toward a goal – cease the narrowing of parameters in the SBC. We have stepped in that direction and I’m glad.
Art Rogers
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 12:25 am:
“John”
That wasn’t Jeremy. Jeremy handled himself fairly well at the mic.
Unlike myself during the Lifeway report, when I forgot the word curriculum and since I was more or less free wheeling, rather than reading, I was stuck until I came up with “Bible Study materials” – which was an eternity.
Oh, well. Good thing I don’t want to be President. :)
Marty Duren
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 1:18 am:
Aaah-rrr-t
Art Rogers
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 1:26 am:
*puzzled look, furrowed brow*
Marty?
Brad Guenther
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 6:06 am:
Brother Art,
I only intended to have a little sport with you. If it was received otherwise, I apologize.
I’m sorry you were treated rudely. I pray that your day today will be better.
“Behold a blogger in whom there is no guile.” That’s why I keep coming back to read your thoughts.
Marty Duren
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 6:51 am:
That’s your new name, born from your “moment of silence” at the mic.
Art Rogers
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 7:09 am:
Brad,
Hey, it’s all part of politics, which is what we are doing. I wasn’t crushed. I was disappointed. More than disappointed, but lack of sleep has kept me from being able to use my vocabulary at anything resembling “normal.”
Speaking of which…
Marty,
It’s all Ben’s fault. I’m blogging the full story right now! :)
Marty Duren
on Jun 13th, 2007
@ 7:21 am:
Amy-
I also have no problem with strategy, it was just funny to watch all the posturing to try and cover all the mics. The reality was that there were two or three that were missed and anyone trying remotely hard could have breached their line.
It was also funny watching one particular blogger attempting to play Montgomery in shifting the troops.